Jean-Sébastien Rioux: First Nations and federal government have compromised before, they can do it again

First Nations and government have agreed before, they can do it again

By all accounts, the Idle No More movement is diffuse, lacks a leader, and has no clearly articulated policy framework for overhauling the First Nations system that protesters see as being broken. At the very least, however, most reasonable Canadians can see the object of the anger: the squalid conditions found in many First Nation communities, and the myriad social issues facing Indigenous people.

Leaving aside the specific controversies surrounding Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike, or whether Idle No More’s criticisms of omnibus Bill C-45 have merit, let us focus on the upcoming meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and aboriginal leaders on January 11. What would constitute success? What could move the file in a productive direction, for both the government and First Nations?

I have some insight into these issues, having served as the chief of staff to Jim Prentice, Prime Minister Harper’s first Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister (as the Department was then called), after the Conservatives formed government in early 2006. We dealt with all these difficult issues then, including the backlash from “cancelling” Paul Martin’s Kelowna Accord, which promised $5-billion in cash to First Nation, Inuit and Métis leaders days before the December 2005 writ.

There were successes, and they were built on a policy of keeping the channels of communication open, and continuing to meet with aboriginal leaders through thick and thin. Prentice led the federal plan to improve water quality on reserves; matrimonial real property legislation was introduced to protect the rights of women who divorced on reserve; settlement of comprehensive claims in British Columbia, including Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth, were concluded — with more to come. And, of powerful symbolic importance was the agreement to settle the sad legacy of Residential Schools.

So, while many of today’s issues seem intractable, success in advancing tough files can be achieved with the right set of people at the table, and through perseverance.

Related

Take the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, Bill C-30, which received Royal Assent in June 2008. I had the privilege of helping to write it, along with former Assembly of First Nations chief for B.C., Shawn Atleo and six other appointees.

The process we used for writing Bill C-30 was intense. In summary, the Prime Minister appointed four representatives from the government of Canada, including myself, and the AFN also appointed four. Along with our legal and technical advisors, we met about every other week for six months to hammer out points of agreement. When we disagreed, we went back and attempted to find compromise.

Because the AFN was a partner in writing the bill, once it was read and sent to the parliamentary standing committee for review, the vast majority of witnesses spoke in its favour. It passed easily, but it was not arrived at easily. Yet we kept coming back to the table, and we had each other’s phone numbers.

(That said, I don’t think there is much appetite for a Canada-AFN joint committee to write every bill that impacts First Nations. After all, my municipal, provincial and federal governments do not consult me every time they pass a law either.)

To return to the original question: What would constitute success on Friday?

First of all, the Prime Minister and national aboriginal leaders should refocus the broadly-titled agenda items: No one can honestly tackle “Inherent Aboriginal and Treaty Rights” in one gathering. Focusing on, say, economic development would be a practical solution.

Within a known set of parameters, such as the budgetary envelope for the next five years, a joint AFN-Government of Canada Task Force with a strong mandate could be appointed to write a plan to engage the country’s most significant untapped labour force by the end of this calendar year. Start with a pilot project and engage successful First Nations leaders in the process as advisors and mentors (one can think of Chief Clarence Louie of Osoyoos; Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation; and many others).

The danger is that the “grassroots” movement may spin out of control. The government needs the AFN to be a legitimate interlocutor, and both sides need to keep channels open and keep working together to find solutions to the difficult problems facing First Nations. Only the demonstration of progress — not just its promise — will quell the Idle No More movement.

National Post

The author is a professor at The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. From February 2006 to August 2008, he was the chief of staff to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as it was then called, in the Harper government.

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.